Well, maybe not. The linked article shows 0 to 60 times and quarter mile times and speeds for 5 of the quickest muscle cars in the late 60s. I’m not impressed. My family sedan does 0 to 60 in the fives, and there are a lot of modern cars that also do it. Better braking and reliability too. Hey, I can even buy a new car that will run rings around the 5 in the article for half the price.
+1
Modern technology has yielded cars with better acceleration, coupled with MUCH better gas mileage, much better handling, and much better braking. And then, there is also the passenger protection factor.
Yet there are regulars who claim the cars from the 1980s and 1990s are better in every way 
A big block Camaro, Cuda or Mustang had the weight distribution of a front wheel drive car… 60+% on the front wheels. Couple that with very poor traction from the bias ply tires of the day means the 0 to 60 times are not going to be very good nor will the 1/4 mile times.
Up to 1972 the engines were tested to gross horsepower… dynoed without accessories, open exhaust and no air cleaner. 72 and later most engine lost about 30% of their former ratings when tested with all accessories and intake and exhaust added. That 375 hp 396 1969 Chevy was really putting out less than 300 hp or the same as the 213 cubic inch (3.5 liter) V6 in my minivan!
The old 1 hp per cubic inch displacement marker got blown away by direct injection. 5 liter V8s making 480 and more hp. 2 liter 4s making 170 to well over 200 hp with a turbo!
And traction with modern tires is similar to 1960’s era drag slicks.
Add them together and even mundane passenger cars and SUVs are cranking out 0-60 times in the 7s while sporty cars are in the 5s and performance cars are in the 3s and 4s. It is a wonderful time to own cars!
But they’re much heavier!
Even my little SUV is in the 5s.
Which are? The old cars or the modern cars?
A few years ago, a group of automotive engineers came to the conclusion that the Hudson sedans of the 1948-1954 era could have been built with less “mass” than had been overdesigned into their chassis, and that modern practices could turn-out an identical-looking Hudson, with 1,000 lbs less weight, and without sacrificing strength.
Standard engines of that era were still often six cylinders, So even small V8 seemed like powerhouses. Open differentials were the standard rearend. Interesting to see the Roadrunner, the RR was introduced as a low cost alternative to the GTX. 383, bench seat, I don’t remember but maybe even a three on the tree, swing out rear side windows rather than roll down.
GM limited their muscle cars to 400ci, hence the Chevy 396, which I think was 402, Fomoco&Mopar did not limit their cars. Though I never owned one, my closest was my 62 Sport Fury with the 361, for the era they were fun to drive. A friend had a 396 El Camino, another had a Ford 7 Litre, standard steering on that Ford, a beast to turn at low speeds. Both had 4 speeds.
Looking back to the legendary Muscle cars of the 60’s, the 1964 Pontiac GTO with the tri power option did 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, the 1965 Mustang Shelby 350 Fastback did it in 7.0 seconds
Today a Hyundai Elantra N and a Mazda 3 Carbon Turbo will both do 0-60 in the low 5’s while avoiding the 1960’s “excitement” of trying to keep the car on the street and safely bringing it to a stop.
So you are comparing 50 year old cars to modern ones?
Wanna bet how few of today’s cars will even be RUNNING in 50 years, let alone restored and ubercool?
That’s true, but because of the soft suspensions of the day, the rear bumper would be flirting with the pavement, and the headlights would be pointing at the sky.
Back in the day, tail-draggers were a cool modification. Especially bootleggers! 
In my neck of the woods, there were tales about guys stealing tombstones to put into their trunk in order to have that tail-dragging look.
That is despicable considering how easy it is to drop the rear on these cars.
My '65 Mustang’s rear leafs ‘dropped’ themselves…
Was that the inception of the Carolina Squat? 
Yes, truly despicable.